Feinstein Refers Kavanaugh to FBI for Alleged Sexual Assault 30 years ago - Page 37 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14951969
But libs did get owned. They tooted that leftist dog whistle hard, then in their arrogance they acted as if the whistle was some kind of magnum opus and when that appeared to be backfiring on them they doubled down on doing that. The more they lose on that issue, the more they will double down on it, perhaps refusing to ever let it go. Like, the next time Libs get owned they're going to be like "ey, remember Kavanaugh? We really got you guys with that one!"
#14951970
Ter wrote:The presumption of innocence should be of primordial importance for any accusation.
In a court of law, yes. He was not, of course, on trial. He was being recommended for the SCOTUS, which is supposed to have only people with the highest levels of integrity. As such, the "burden of proof" should lie with Kavanaugh.

Ter wrote:What if someone in Thailand says you made a bad joke about the monarch ? You risk being thrown in jail or deported from the country.
I would not be at risk, as that would then go to a court, where they'd have to provide actual evidence. Kavanaugh's case is not the same, nor comparable.

Ter wrote:How will you prove you did NOT say that ?
They would have to provide evidence as such, so I'd be quite unconcerned.

Again, you are comparing how a court of law works, as opposed to an appointment to the SCOTUS. Not the same thing by a long shot.
Last edited by Godstud on 08 Oct 2018 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
#14951971
I believe Blasey Ford because I watched her speak before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I know Kavanaugh isn't qualified and is already a disgrace because I watched him break down sobbing, flitting between fits of rage and hysteria, live on camera in front of millions of Americans.

Not a single conservative in this thread has said a positive thing about Kavanaugh's testimony, btw. For some reason, no conservative in this thread wants to talk about it.
#14951976
Hong Wu wrote:Why is that a problem, I thought you were championing raped women and equality of the sexes?


Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you think this behavior is acceptable for both the victim and the predator? Christ, what is wrong with you?

Everyone gather round, let's laugh at Hong Wu.

His argument is literally that rape is as hard on the rapist as it is on the victim. Good job, genius.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 08 Oct 2018 03:17, edited 1 time in total.
#14951977
Godstud wrote:Since Kavanaugh was never actually on trial, it's sort of a dumb comparison.


It wasn't a criminal trial, it was a trial by media or a trial in the court of public opinion.

At the very least, the Kavanaugh was an administrative hearing with potential legal implications that could lead to a criminal trial for both parties.
#14951979
I do agree actually that I would have theoretically liked it if Kavanaugh had said "skank is lying, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this high school shit because they know I'm spotless in my adult life and no one keeps thorough records of high school. What a bunch of losers." But it's the Democrats who demand optics and tears, so he had to blubber and so-on. I blame the Dems for it and not him.
#14951984
SpecialOlympian wrote:You mean the actual thing he said that you were so tuned out of that you didn't even notice?

Thank you for your informed contribution, Hong Wu.

Jesus. Read a fucking Yahoo! news article or something so you don't embarrass yourself further.

Hey, I don't have to qualify the effort I put in to someone like you :lol:

I read that he cried and so yeah, I didn't even watch him getting down and dirty with them. He deserves better than that but you know, the fucking Dems and their leftist dog whistles forcing everyone to talk about their feelings and shit, then they try and attack him for doing it but they failed and if they were trying to make me feel bad, yeah I didn't even watch that shit. A for effort though, they almost didn't make their own situation worse with the way they've handled this.
#14951985
You put in no effort to start, why do any additional effort?

I have to say, "I literally know nothing about the subject we are talking about. I am completely uninformed and clueless" is a strong starting point for an argument. No wonder you didn't pass the Bar exam.
#14951986
Being honest here, Ford was part of the power fantasy for housewives who get cheated on by their husbands, or sluts who will be discarded once they turn 25 and have to set out for revenge. Kavanaugh cries too because that's what influences those people. Sad. Maybe if Feinstein hadn't decided to lower the bar but they did and it's going to be their problem in the future because the bar is now too low for anyone respectable to credibly limbo under IRL.
#14951990
SpecialOlympian wrote:Are you seriously so fucking stupid that you think this behavior is acceptable for both the victim and the predator? Christ, what is wrong with you?

Everyone gather round, let's laugh at Hong Wu.

His argument is literally that rape is as hard on the rapist as it is on the victim. Good job, genius.

They say when one does not have the facts on his side, then resort to name calling.
One fact that you seemed to overlook is Dr. Ford said Kavanaugh did not rape her, but she thought he might rape or kill her accidentally because she claims he was so drunk with beer drinking. She says she only had one beer, which was illegal since she was only 15 at the time according to her. Kavanaugh never admitted to any illegal actions. Therefore, I find Dr. Ford guilty.
#14951995
All Kavanaugh had to say was that he didn't remember doing so, and that if he acted in a bad manner, he regrets it. Of course, he did nothing of the sort. He simply tried to justify being a rapey asshole.
#14951998
Godstud wrote:In a court of law, yes. He was not, of course, on trial. He was being recommended for the SCOTUS, which is supposed to have only people with the highest levels of integrity. As such, the "burden of proof" should lie with Kavanaugh.

His records and recommendations proved that he has the qualifications and highest possible level of integrity to be inducted in the SCOTUS.
What the Democrats dragged in (after Schumer said they will do absolutely anything to stop Kavanaugh of being inducted) is an uncorroborated verbal accusation.

Godstud wrote:I would not be at risk, as that would then go to a court, where they'd have to provide actual evidence.

If somebody said he/she heard you, you would be in big trouble.
The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any justice.
#14952000
Ter wrote:His records and recommendations proved that he has the qualifications and highest possible level of integrity to be inducted in the SCOTUS.
What the Democrats dragged in (after Schumer said they will do absolutely anything to stop Kavanaugh of being inducted) is an uncorroborated verbal accusation.
His personal history proved otherwise. People said they didn't remember it, but not one actually disputed the accusation.

Ter wrote:The presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any justice, IN A COURT OF LAW.
Fixed. This was, AGAIN(I am repeating myself a lot), not in a court of law, so there was no necessity for presumption of innocence.
  • 1
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 47

@Rich Not for the dead.

"The United States last week secretly shipped[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

We don't walk away from our allies says Genocide […]

@FiveofSwords Doesn't this 'ethnogenesis' mala[…]